LORD CARNARVON’S DESPATCH.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4346, 23 February 1875, Page 3

LORD CARNARVON’S DESPATCH.

(From the Melbourne Argus.) Lord Carnarvon’s despatch with reference to the prerogative of pardon, which we published yesterday, seems to imply that tho minute of the Executive Council of New South Wales, hearing date tho 2nd of June, 1874, does not apply to capital oases. This, however, is erroneous. According to the terms of that minute, it was recommended “that in future aU petitions and applications for mitigation of sentence or pardon, be received, considered, and submitted to his Excellency by the Minister of Justice and Public Instruction.” And, as we observed when tho subject first came up for discussion, the principle affirmed by Sir Hercules Robinson’s late advisers is a sound one ; for, having been invested by tho imperial Parliament with self-governing powers, these colonies must ho prepared to assume all the responsibilities of constitutional government. There is no reason whatever for the reservation of the Royal prerogative in respect to the pardon of criminals in Australia, nor any just cause for concluding that it would not bo as judiciously exercised by a body of responsible Ministers there ns by tho Home Secretary in England. But of course cases will arise in which Imperial interests or policy may be concerned such for example as treason, slave trading,-or the conviction of foreigners—and in these, as in political questions, such as the signification of the Royal assent to measures likewise affecting Imperial interests, the Governor must necessarily act upon his independent judgment. In all others it appears to us to be essential to the complete-

ness of the system of responsible government, that the opinion and advice of the Ministry fertile time being should be taken and acted upon by her Majesty’s representative in each of these colonies. , , . , T , In Earl Granvilles despatch to Eord Behnore on' the 4th of October, .1869, he advises that, unless in the exceptional cases just referred to, “great weight should be allowed to the recommendations of the Ministry and Lord Kimberley, writing on the Ist of November,' 1871, instructs the Governor of New South Wales “not to grant any pardon without receiving advice thereupon.” But these suggestions, or directions, which are not without ambiguity, leave the matter in a very anomalous position ; for they seem to modify or qualify the terms of the Royal instructions, and place the Queen’s representative in an embarrassing predicament. In effect they say to him, “You must seek the opinion of your responsible advisers, but you must follow your own. You must pay them the equivocal compliment of asking their advice as to the course you should pursue, but you must disregard that advice if it does not ’ happen to coincide with the foregone conclusions which you yourself have arrived at.” Would it not be far better to entrust the exercise of the prerogative to those who have the appointment of the judiciary in their own hands, and who are re-sponsible-to the Parliament and the people for the use or the misuse of their authority ?

We entirely concur with Lord Carnarvon in the belief that the practice of exiling criminals should be allowed to fall into desuetude, and the sooner the enactments which authorise such a proceeding are removed from our statute-books the better. To quote his own words “ The effect upon neighboring colonies, the empire generally, or foreign countries, of letting loose a highly' criminal or dangerous felon, to reside in any part of the world, except only that principally concerned,, to take charge of him, was a step which might clearly, and not unreasonably, give rise to complaints from without the colony; nor could the recommendation of a colonial Ministry favor of such a course be of itself a sufficient justification of it.”

“ How would you like it j” is the question frequently put to a wrongdoer by the man he has injured. We must confess that, smarting under the infliction of Sullivan, we do not Ijke it at all.